The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health care policies, including drug-funding policies, influence physician practice. Funding policies are especially important in the area of cancer care since cancer is a leading cause of death that is responsible for a significant level of health care expenditures. Recognizing the rising cost of cancer therapies, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) established a funding process to provide access to new, effective agents through a "New Drug Funding Program" (NDFP). The purpose of this study is to describe oncologists' perceptions of the impact of NDFP priority setting decisions on their practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a qualitative study involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 46 medical oncologists in Ontario. Oncologists were asked to describe the impact of CCO's NDFP drug funding decisions on their practice. Analysis of interview transcripts commenced with data collection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our key finding is that many of the medical oncologists who participated in this study did not accept limits when policy decisions limit access to cancer drugs they feel would benefit their patients. Moreover, overcoming those limits had a significant impact on oncologists' practice in terms of how they spend their time and energy and their relationship with patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When priority setting decisions limit access to cancer medications, many oncologists' efforts to overcome those limits have a significant impact on their practice. Policy makers need to seriously consider the implications of their decisions on physicians, who may go to considerable effort to circumvent their policies in the name of patient advocacy.</p

“Members of the Same Club”: Challenges and Decisions Faced by US IRBs in Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in research have received increasing attention, but many questions arise about how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) view and approach these. Methods: I conducted in-depth interviews of 2 hours each with 46 US IRB chairs, administrators, and members, exploring COI and other issues related to research integrity. I contacted leaders of 60 IRBs (every fourth one among the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%). Data were analyzed using standard qualitative methods, informed by Grounded Theory. Results: IRBs confront financial and non-financial COIs of PIs, institutions, and IRBs themselves. IRB members may seek to help, or compete with, principal investigators (PIs). Non-financial COI also often appear to be “indirect financial” conflicts based on gain (or loss) not to oneself, but to one's colleagues or larger institution. IRBs faced challenges identifying and managing these COI, and often felt that they could be more effective. IRBs' management of their own potential COI vary, and conflicted members may observe, participate, and/or vote in discussions. Individual IRB members frequently judge for themselves whether to recuse themselves. Challenges arise in addressing these issues, since institutions and PIs need funding, financial information is considered confidential, and COI can be unconscious. Conclusions: This study, the first to explore qualitatively how IRBs confront COIs and probe how IRBs confront non-financial COIs, suggests that IRBs face several types of financial and non-financial COIs, involving themselves, PIs, and institutions, and respond varyingly. These data have critical implications for practice and policy. Disclosure of indirect and non-financial COIs to subjects may not be feasible, partly since IRBs, not PIs, are conflicted. Needs exist to consider guidelines and clarifications concerning when and how, in protocol reviews, IRB members should recuse themselves from participating, observing, and/or voting

Hospital and outpatient clinic utilization among older people in the 3-5 years following the initiation of continuing care: a longitudinal cohort study

Background: Few studies have investigated the subsequent rate of hospital and outpatient clinic utilization in those who receive continuing care and have documented frequent usage over one year. Such knowledge may be helpful in identifying those who would benefit from preventive interventions. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the subsequent rate of hospital and outpatient clinic utilization among older people with 0, 1, 2, 3 or more hospital stays in the first year following the initiation of continuing care. A further aim was to compare these groups regarding demographic data, health complaints, functional and cognitive ability, informal care and mortality. Methods: A total of 1079 people, aged 65 years or older, who received a decision regarding the initiation of continuing care during the years 2001, 2002 or 2003 were investigated. Four groups were created based on whether they had 0, 1, 2 or >= 3 hospital stays in the first year following the initiation of continuing care and were investigated regarding the rate of hospital and outpatient clinic utilization in the subsequent 3-5 years. Results: Fifty seven percent of the sample had no hospital stay during the first year following the initiation of continuing care, 20% had 1 stay, 10% had 2 stays and 13% had three or more hospital stays (range: 3-13). Those with >= 3 hospital stays in the first year continued to have the significantly highest rate of hospital and outpatient care utilization in the subsequent years. This group accounted for 57% of hospital stays in the first year, 27% in the second year and 18% in the third year. In this group the risk of having >= 3 hospital stays in the second year was 27% and 12% in the third year. Conclusions: There is a clear need for interventions targeted on prevention of frequent hospital and outpatient clinic utilization among those who are high users of hospital care in the first year after the initiation of continuing care. Perhaps an increased availability of medically skilled staff in the day to day care of these people in the municipalities could prevent frequent hospital and outpatient clinic utilization, especially hospital readmissions

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review

Background: There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations. Methodology/Principal Findings: We searched Medline (1980 to March, 2011) for studies that examined the effect of COI on CPG development and/or recommendations. Data synthesis was qualitative. Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria; 9 were conducted in the US. All studies reported on financial relationships of CPG authors with the pharmaceutical industry; 1 study also examined relationships with diagnostic testing and insurance companies. The majority of guidelines had authors with industry affiliations, including consultancies (authors with relationship, range 6–80%); research support (4–78%); equity/stock ownership (2–17%); or any COI (56–87%). Four studies reported multiple types of financial interactions for individual authors (number of types per author: range 2 to 10 or more). Data on the effect of COI on CPG recommendations were confined to case studies wherein authors with specific financial ties appeared to benefit from the related CPG recommendations. In a single study, few authors believed that their relationships influenced their recommendations. No studies reported on intellectual COI in CPGs

Exploring the association of dual use of the VHA and Medicare with mortality: separating the contributions of inpatient and outpatient services

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Older veterans may use both the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare, but the association of dual use with health outcomes is unclear. We examined the association of indirect measures of dual use with mortality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our secondary analysis used survey, claims, and National Death Index data from the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old. The analytic sample included 1,521 men who were Medicare beneficiaries. Veterans were classified as dual users when their self-reported number of hospital episodes or physician visits exceeded that in their Medicare claims. Veterans reporting inpatient or outpatient visits but having no Medicare claims were classified as VHA-only users. Proportional hazards regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>897 (59%) of the men were veterans, of whom 134 (15%) were dual users. Among dual users, 60 (45%) met the criterion based on inpatient services, 54 (40%) based on outpatient services, and 20 (15%) based on both. 766 men (50%) died. Adjusting for covariates, the independent effect of any dual use was a 38% increased mortality risk (AHR = 1.38; p = .02). Dual use based on outpatient services marginally increased mortality risk by 45% (AHR = 1.45; p = .06), and dual use based on both inpatient and outpatient services increased the risk by 98% (AHR = 1.98; p = .02).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Indirect measures of dual use were associated with increased mortality risk. New strategies to better coordinate care, such as shared medical records, should be considered.</p

Dual use of Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration: are there adverse health outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Millions of veterans are eligible to use the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare because of their military service and age. This article examines whether an indirect measure of dual use based on inpatient services is associated with increased mortality risk. METHODS: Data on 1,566 self-responding men (weighted N = 1,522) from the Survey of Assets and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) were linked to Medicare claims and the National Death Index. Dual use was indirectly indicated when the self-reported number of hospital episodes in the 12 months prior to baseline was greater than that observed in the Medicare claims. The independent association of dual use with mortality was estimated using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: 96 (11%) of the veterans were classified as dual users. 766 men (50.3%) had died by December 31, 2002, including 64.9% of the dual users and 49.3% of all others, for an attributable mortality risk of 15.6% (p < .003). Adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, comorbidity, hospitalization status, and selection bias at baseline, as well as subsequent hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, the independent effect of dual use was a 56.1% increased relative risk of mortality (AHR = 1.561; p = .009). CONCLUSION: An indirect measure of veterans' dual use of the VHA and Medicare systems, based on inpatient services, was associated with an increased risk of death. Further examination of dual use, especially in the outpatient setting, is needed, because dual inpatient and dual outpatient use may be different phenomena

Nationwide monitoring of end-of-life care via the Sentinel Network of General Practitioners in Belgium: the research protocol of the SENTI-MELC study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>End-of-life care has become an issue of great clinical and public health concern. From analyses of official death certificates, we have societal knowledge on how many people die, at what age, where and from what causes. However, we know little about how people are dying. There is a lack of population-based and nationwide data that evaluate and monitor the circumstances of death and the care received in the final months of life. The present study was designed to describe the places of end-of-life care and care transitions, the caregivers involved in patient care and the actual treatments and care provided to dying patients in Belgium. The patient, residence and healthcare characteristics associated with these aspects of end-of-life care provision will also be studied. In this report, the protocol of the study is outlined.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We designed a nationwide mortality follow-back study with data collection in 2005 and 2006, via the nationwide Belgian Sentinel Network of General Practitioners (GPs) i.e. an existing epidemiological surveillance system representative of all GPs in Belgium, covering 1.75% of the total Belgian population. All GPs were asked to report weekly, on a standardized registration form, every patient (>1 year) in their practice who had died, and to identify patients who had died "non-suddenly." The last three months of these patients' lives were surveyed retrospectively. Several quality control measures were used to ensure data of high scientific quality.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In 2005 and 2006, respectively 1385 and 1305 deaths were identified of which 66% and 63% died non-suddenly. The first results are expected in 2007. Via this study, we will build a descriptive epidemiological database on end-of-life care provision in Belgium, which might serve as baseline measurement to monitor end-of-life care over time. The study will inform medical practice as well as healthcare authorities in setting up an end-of-life care policy. We publish the protocol here to inform others, in particular countries with analogue GP surveillance networks, on the possibilities of performing end-of-life care research. A preliminary analysis of the possible strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of our research is outlined.</p

Perceived Conflict of Interest in Health Science Partnerships

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested